Timely Topics

Northern Advocate, 11 January 1938, Page 4

Timely Topics

When president Roosevelt asked the Federal Trade Commission to study the connection between “mon-

opolistic practices” MONOPOLY IS and the rising cost ENEMY OF of living, some of CAPITALISM, his critics said he

was only trying to dodge responsibility for the business recession. They declared an attack on monopoly was designed to put on business the blame for trouble Caused by the Government’s attitude toward business.

This, we believe, was a biased and undiscerning view of the President’s purpose. For he is now showing, according to reports from the train taking him to Miami, that he intends to continue with 'a drive against monopoly.

For unbiased observers who standi aside from the barr'age of blame and counterbl'ame in which government and business have been indulging it is clear that the spread of monopoly is the greatest economic threat to capitalism.

It furnishes political threats to capitalism, their best excuse. For it destroys free competition, the very foundation of capitalism. It oppresses the people with high prices, curtails markets and chedks production. Agitation against a free economy and demands for a planned economy find fertile ground when monopoly blocks the distribution of the products of a free economy. “Christian Science Monitor”

“The conflict has not spread beyond the borders of Spain, and may I be allowed to add that such a consideration must be of the THE SPANISH greatest moment to ISSUE. us all ? Though, .therefore, the main abject for which the policy was created has so far been achieved, it would be idle to deny that there have been wide breaches of the (agreement. Engagements entered into have not been kept. There are foreign nationals in large numbers fighting on Spanish soil.

“No agreement has been reached for their withdrawal. This is a state of affairs pregnant with danger to the peace of Europe. We are ready enough to take our full share, and more than our full share, of responsibility for the policy of non-interven-tion. We have consistently supported that policy. If non-intervention has now been discarded, it will not be for lack of patience on the part of its original sponsors.

“Let us not, however, conceal from ourselves this patent fact: If the policy of non-intervention is abandoned Europe will be swept into deeper and more dangerous waters. A leaky cam may yet serve its purpose, but we alone cannot decide the fate of this policy.” —Mr Anthony Eden,